Angela Walker In Conversation - Inspirational Interviews, Under-Reported News
For news lovers everywhere. Join former BBC reporter and broadcast journalist Angela Walker as she engages in thought-provoking conversations with inspirational individuals about current affairs and under-reported issues. We examine stories mainstream media don’t cover: issues of social justice and campaigns that aim to improve society and the world we live in. We look at issues around government, climate change, the environment and world around us. In this podcast, we aim to shed light on important topics that often go unnoticed, providing a platform for insightful discussions with our guests.
From activists and social entrepreneurs to academics and community leaders, these individuals bring their expertise and experiences to the table. Through their stories, we explore the challenges they have overcome, their motivations, and the lessons they have learned along the way. We examine issues of social justice and campaigns that aim to improve society and the world we live in.
If you have an inquiring mind and enjoy BBC Radio 4, The Today Programme, PM, The World At One, Panorama, Despatches, documentaries and interview programmes then this is the place for you.
Listen to be inspired and informed.
Note: please note that it is not technically possible to reply to fanmail via the Buzzsprout webpage, it simply sends me a message, so if you would like a response then please add contact details or send me a message via my website www.angelawalkerreports.com.
Music: Moment of Inspiration from http://www.purple-planet.com
Follow Angela on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/angela-walker-53333622?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
#SocialJustice #CurrentAffairs #humaninterest #Activism #ClimateChange #Environment #Government #InspirationalConversations #CommunityLeaders #ExpertInterviews #Motivation #CampaignsForChange #ThoughtLeadership #InformedListening #PodcastDiscussion #BBCRadio4 #Panorama #Documentaries #InterviewPrograms #InsightfulTalks
Angela Walker In Conversation - Inspirational Interviews, Under-Reported News
ANDY BURNHAM: Hillsborough Law must criminalise state cover-ups
The culture of cover-up within British public institutions has devastated countless lives. From Hillsborough to the infected blood scandal to the Primodos drug tragedy, families have spent decades fighting for truth against a system where many in authority have colluded against them.
This episode explores the urgent need for the Public Authority Accountability Bill - commonly known as Hillsborough Law - with two powerful voices leading the charge: Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester who first introduced the bill to Parliament in 2017, and Marie Lyon, Chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Pregnancy Hormone Tests.
The bill would establish a legal duty of candour with criminal sanctions for officials who mislead or obstruct investigations. Equally crucial, it would ensure parity of legal funding at inquests, stopping the practice where public bodies hire top legal representation while families struggle with limited resources. As Burnham explains, "It has been too easy for authorities to cover up in this country and too hard for ordinary families to get to the truth."
Marie Lyon shares the harrowing story of how pregnant women were prescribed Primodos - a drug containing synthetic hormones at 40 times the dose in contraceptive pills - despite evidence dating back to 1967 showing it caused birth defects. The decades-long cover-up reveals a disturbing pattern: public bodies prioritising financial considerations over human suffering.
Despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer's commitment to enact the law before the 36th anniversary of Hillsborough, the deadline has passed. Campaigners remain vigilant against attempts to water down the legislation.
"The British government underestimates the strength of the British people because people do not give in and they keep fighting." says Burnham.
https://hillsboroughlawnow.org/
https://primodos.org/
Hi listener. I thought you might enjoy Don Anderson's podcast. Missing Pieces - NPE Life is a podcast that curates stories of and about people who find out, usually through a home DNA test, that someone in their family tree isn't who they thought. They also tell stories of adoptees who've found lost family, or are looking. The host, Don Anderson, found out in 2021 that his dad wasn't his dad. It changed his life. NPE stands for Not Parent Expected or Non Paternity Event.
https://www.angelawalkerreports.com/
We want full exposure and the people who have been responsible need to face the consequences.
Speaker 2:Only that will change the cover-up culture of the British state.
Speaker 3:Public authorities and officials could face criminal sanctions if they fail to cooperate with investigations into major disasters. The Public Authority Accountability Bill, known as Hillsborough Law, is set to introduce a legal duty of candour on public officials and public bodies and make misleading or obstructing an investigation a criminal offence. Prime Minister Keir Starmer had promised the bill will be enacted before the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, in which 97 people died in a football stadium crush. That date has now passed and the bill has not yet been enacted. I'm journalist Angela Walker and in this podcast I talk to inspirational people and discuss under-reported news. My guests today are Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who introduced the bill to Parliament in 2017, and Mary Lyon, the Chair of the Association for Children Damaged by Pregnancy Hormone Tests. Thank you both for joining us.
Speaker 2:You're welcome, angela. Good to be with you, thank you.
Speaker 3:Marie, I know you've got some really personal reasons for supporting this bill regarding the action of authorities relating to disabilities caused by a drug prescribed by the NHS, and I'm going to ask you about that shortly and how this bill could help you and those families. But first, andy, can you explain the proposed bill to us?
Speaker 2:Yes. So thank you, angela, angela, for your interest in it. It came about following my work with the Hillsborough families. People might remember that I attended Anfield on the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough's Culture Secretary, made a commitment to the families that I would seek to get them the truth about Hillsborough and then the justice that we could achieve as part of that. And, as people know, we did secure that second inquest verdict of unlawful killing. But the individual accountability was never achieved and we were quite clear that the defects in the British culture with relation to these issues and in the law had basically prevented full justice for the Hillsborough families.
Speaker 2:Hence the case for what we call the Hillsborough law or, as you correctly said, technically the Public Authority Accountability Bill. The simple truth is this it has been too easy for the authorities to cover up in this country and it has been too hard for ordinary families to get to the truth and to get to justice. And Mary will talk to you very personally about that, I'm sure. But that is the bottom line and you can see that through many injustices Hillsborough being one, but infected blood being another, post office being one that perhaps has brought the highest profile to these issues because people very much saw the way that that played out. But there are many more as well, and some, sadly, that have been going on for decades still unresolved. So Primados, very much high amongst them, but also the really awful injustice of those who served our country overseas and were subjected without consent or personal protective equipment to nuclear tests, and those nuclear test veterans still fighting alongside Mary and many other campaigns actually to to get to the truth. So the Hillsborough law does two things in short. Number one, that duty of candour, a requirement, a legal requirement with criminal sanctions on people to tell the truth. At the first time of asking, you would think not much to ask, wouldn't you? Of public servants, but sadly, as I said before, it's too easy for people to cover up. And the second element of it is parity for families at inquests where the state is involved.
Speaker 2:What has happened in the past is people who have been in a position of responsibility have created false narratives in the aftermath of disaster, you know, blaming the individuals concerned, as they did with the Liverpool supporters or indeed with the, you know, postmasters and mistresses, to kind of claim that they were kind of thieves, if you like. And it was, the system was fine and it was on them. That's what often what happens. The authorities shift the blame onto the victims. That's one part of it, but then they cement those false narratives in courtrooms because those individual, ordinary people often don't have the resources of the state when it comes to the legal representation, and police and public bodies, you know, spare no taxpayer's expense in hiring the best KCs in the land to cement their false narratives in courtrooms. So it's those two elements of the Hillsborough law that are critical. And of course, this bill isn't now about helping the Hillsborough families, but it absolutely is about helping those families fighting for justice for people damaged by primados.
Speaker 3:Was there a moment, Andy, where you just saw what is going on? We've got to get the wheels in motion for a law to prevent this kind of behaviour.
Speaker 2:Definitely so.
Speaker 2:You know, when I was doing the work that I was doing on Hillsborough, I had many people in Parliament say to me you know, there's a real parallel with infected blood and can you take a look at infected blood once you've finished with Hillsborough?
Speaker 2:Obviously, never finished with Hillsborough, but, you know, once I had more capacity to turn my attention to infected blood and this one is what was one I'd lived even more directly because, as health secretary, I had come into the Department of Health in 2009 in the immediate aftermath of something called the Archer Report, which was, you know, an independent report into what had gone on and the government at the time my predecessor as health secretary hadn't basically accepted what the Archer Report was saying and the Department of Health had tried to close the issue back down. And I kind of came in not knowing all the ins and outs of infected blood, but having been working on Hillsborough and I was saying to the Department of Health at the time you know, hang on a minute, there is something here that needs looking at, and MPs were encouraging me to open it up.
Speaker 2:The truth of the matter is I did a limited amount while I was health secretary. I didn't have the time because the general election came in 2010,. But then, in opposition, I started to look deeply into infected blood and my key into Hillsborough was the discovery of amended police statements, where police officers had had their words amended by seniors to sanitise the situation and take the blame off the police. In the case of infected blood with campaigners, I discovered that there were just thousands of people who had medical records either deleted or amended, and in one particular case it had real echoes of Hillsborough, where somebody had had their medical records amended to suggest that a liver transplant had been caused by alcoholism, as opposed to the infected blood that they'd been given and the hepatitis that had come as a result of that. And in that moment I thought right, here's the parallel Again, that tactic of blame the individual, and often alcohol, is used by the British authorities to really stigmatise somebody. It seems to be a common tactic and that got me looking into it in detail and I really started to unravel it and I made my last speech in Parliament before I left Parliament on this very issue and by that point I was clear that this was a criminal cover-up on an industrial scale, which is the phrase that I used.
Speaker 2:And then, when I subsequently gave evidence to the Infected Blood Inquiry, which resulted from the last speech that I kind of made, I got access to all of my paperwork as Secretary of State for Health and I simultaneously saw that there was evidence that the Department of Health knew about infected blood.
Speaker 2:But as Health Secretary in 2009, I was given letters to send to campaigners saying nobody was knowingly given unsafe blood products. So I established that I was told a lie as Health Secretary by the Department of Health, and this is what takes us to Mary's campaign. I am absolutely certain that the same could be said about this situation. There is knowledge in the Department of Health that Primidos was unsafe, that it caused birth defects, and the denial of that reality for too long has created a major injustice. So basically, it was that realisation. I knew from my work on Hillsborough that things were bad, angela, but when I discovered that I was lied to as a cabinet minister about infected blood, basically the scales fell from my eyes and I just realised how far the British state will go to cover up.
Speaker 3:It really beggars belief. And you talk about the families of the infected blood scandal and I've worked and interviewed with many of those people affected through the years since before there was even inquiry into the infected blood scandal, and one of the things that really stuck out for me, that they kept telling me time and time again was not only had this tragic thing happened to their family member, but then it was covered up and they were gaslit and they were lied to. And, marie, is that something that you can relate to when we're talking about this drug primidos and how it resulted in birth defects? Tell us about your campaign. How long have you got?
Speaker 1:There's a lot. Well, the campaign to expose the deliberate use of synthetic hormones as a pregnancy test started, believe it or not, in 1978. The completely safe urine test was available at the time that we took these drugs, but GPs were incentivized to try Primidos as a pregnancy test on women. It was an unnecessary, invasive test which had absolutely no therapeutic value, just documented risk, and it contained the same components of the oral contraceptive pill and at that time it was 40 times the dose that pregnant women were taking. However, it was incredibly lucrative for the drug company, who sold Primidos in 97 countries, due to the incestuous relationship with the UK regulator, who enabled the drug to be accepted in the UK without adequate testing and suppressed all evidence of adverse effects, including an in-depth study in 1967 by Dr Isabel Gell, which demonstrated HPTs were responsible for children being born with life-changing, life-limiting abnormalities, stillbirths and miscarriages when taken in pregnancy.
Speaker 1:So we started the campaign in 78 because obviously we were alerted then and that was the year that Primidos was eventually removed from the market. But that meant that for 20 years since the first warning was issued, many more women were put at risk, and many of those women were our families, our members. But the cover-up did not stop with the regulator, and this is where it gets quite shocking as well. The World Health Organization were also complicit and actually stated we cannot afford a world population explosion if women stop taking the pill, and this concern was obviously due to the media highlighting the synthetic hormones were also in the oral contraceptive, which was also manufactured by the same drug company. In 2018, former Prime Minister Theresa May read the EWG report and found it didn't even add up, so she commissioned an independent review. It was the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Review which was published in 2020.
Speaker 3:And that review concluded Primadar should have been removed from the market in 1967. Marie, there's really, in short, there's just decades of campaigning. There were reports that showed there was scientific evidence that showed that the drug was dangerous to unborn babies and could cause miscarriage and deformity, and still it was prescribed to pregnant women. How would this public authority bill help you and women like you and those primodos families?
Speaker 1:Gosh, it would have been incredible. That drug is still on the market today. People don't understand that. It's in the morning after pill, it's in the abortion pill. It's in the third world country still being used as allegedly a pregnancy test.
Speaker 1:Well, to be honest, we will never have safety in medicines unless this bill is enacted, because it's only by making it a criminal offense to lie and suppress evidence will the culture of protect and deny desist, because the public will continue to be failed with fatal consequences. And it's not just for compensation. The PAAB is to save lives and prevent other families fighting for justice when their hearts are breaking and they're unable to grieve because they're still, like us, trying to expose the truth. So we would have, first of all, all that information would have to be revealed. That would be an absolute game changer for us. But in fact, you know, the parity of arms as well would be a fantastic support because we wouldn't need to have legal aid. You know, we would have exactly the same funding that the government bodies would have. That would actually be a wonderful impact on on the public, because the taxpayer would no longer be funding huge amounts of of money for the government and public bodies to sue people and and, of course, it would level up the playing field.
Speaker 3:It would level up the playing field so that, you know, campaigners had the same legal representation as the people that they're trying to hold to account. Andy, this is such an important bill. Why hasn't it happened by this deadline that the you know Keir Starmer gave 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster? Why hasn't it met that deadline?
Speaker 2:It's hard to know for sure because obviously we're on the outside saying that we do need to see this bill delivered in full, and that's the consistent call from not just the Hillsborough families but every justice campaign that has come together, you know, ever since Hillsborough. And the great thing now is those campaigns are all networked and supporting each other and that's been a really big and positive change, learning from each other, because the fight back has got stronger. When we've started to work like this, I think always in government you know I've been there there'll be elements within the system. Oh well, this can't apply to us because you know national security, or this can't apply to us because of the cost. I absolutely remember you know being in a government department those type of arguments being made. But I think Mary just made the point at the end there.
Speaker 2:The Hillsborough law would be a major money saver for the British state because if the truth was told at the first time of asking the compensation, that's when people need it and it would just be paid up front and then it would be lower. The failure to deal with it just means that the cost ratchets up over the years and we see that with infected blood. But it's also the case. We see that with infected, with infected blood, but it's. It's also the case, though, that if you had a requirement for parity of legal funding, exactly as mary said, you would stop public bodies, yes, throwing taxpayers money around in hiring the best cases in the in the land. There would be an incentive on public bodies to reduce their own legal spending because that the parity had to be achieved with respect to the legal representation for ordinary families.
Speaker 2:And you know the objections to the Hillsborough law don't stack up, I'm afraid, and you know the commitment that was made was clear. So I think our feeling would be, you know we would rather the bill has got right than rushed to meet any deadline. Work is underway to make sure that it passes the test, but that test is a pretty clear one A full duty of candour, with criminal sanctions and parity of legal funding for families at those legal proceedings. Those are the twin planks of the Hillsborough law, and you know we're quite clear, working through the Hillsborough Law Now campaign, that nothing else will be good enough, and you know only that will change the culture within the British, the cover-up culture of the British state which, I'm afraid, has been a feature of the way life has been in this country for, as you've heard from Mary, from decades, and certainly the nuclear test veterans, if they were represented in this discussion today, would be vigorously nodding, along with everything that Mary said.
Speaker 1:I mean I'm. I'll give you an example, angela, because it is. There are actually briefings from officials, believe it or not, in cabinet office and you know. Examples of this were they're briefing journalists with blatantly false information to undermine the bill. One of these appeared in the times on the 3rd of april, where they stated that civil service personnel could be affected by the law for minor incidents. That is a lie. It is only if they fail to tell the truth about harm. And really for me, now it's up to the prime minister to demonstrate leadership skills and take control of the bill. You know, prevent the cabinet office from undermining the process to prevent implementation. Implementation of the bill, as andy says, in its original form. It's got to be complete.
Speaker 3:I contacted the cabinet office for a statement and they sent this. They say the Hillsborough disaster is one of the greatest stains on British history, and the family of those who lost loved ones have shown endless determination to get justice. Having consulted with these groups over the past few weeks, we believe more time is needed to draft the best version of a Hillsborough law. We remain fully committed to bringing in this legislation at pace, which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal sanctions for those who refuse to comply. That's the full statement that the government sent me. Marie, you just looked. Well, you laughed when I read that statement out. Well, it's another barrier.
Speaker 1:You know they're trying to say, yes, we're doing it at pace. What does that pace mean? It means absolutely nothing. It means that what they're trying to do is delay the bill. They're trying to water it down. It will not be accepted I will tell you that now by any of the members, because there are lots of us now, lots of campaign groups. We want full exposure, we want full acknowledgement and the people who have been responsible need to face the consequences, and that goes for, you know, past misdeeds. Obviously now we're going to struggle with that, but certainly it should stop future government officials thinking that they can actually suppress evidence.
Speaker 3:Well, they'll have to think twice, won't they? They'll have to think twice, andy. I've interviewed the parents of Zane Bangbola. This was a seven-year-old boy who died when cyanide from a secret landfill entered his home during flooding. His parents have campaigned tirelessly and they face so many obstructions. Well, it's devastating to hear what they have been through and what they are still going through, because they are being gaslit. And Zane's dad, kai. I told him that I'd be talking to you and I asked him if he wanted me to put anything to you, and he specifically asked how does this fit in with their son's case? Does this fit in with their son's case? And also asked about the parity of arms, and he flagged up this funding, the um, the parity of arms. He said families do not get funding for the same level of legal representation. What will that mean to Zane Bangbola's parents and their ongoing campaign for justice?
Speaker 2:well, I'm certainly glad, angela, that you've raised Zane's case, because I think it's a really important case for a whole host of reasons, not least for the Bangbola family. But it also illustrates that the same can happen to an individual family, that can happen to multiple families in respect of a more widespread disaster like Hillsborough or Primidos or Infected Blood. But the same thing happens and for individual families it's even harder, isn't it, to fight when the public aren't aware of what's going on. It doesn't have the same profile and it's in many ways kind of even tougher for people in their position because they're doing it very much alone. Um, what would it mean in zane's case? Well, I remember working with kai and nicole in relation to the inquest and it was shocking actually the way that they were treated in that inquest. The same thing again about, you know, implying the family was negligent or to blame, but not being given that sort of legal representation to fight those kind of suggestions that were thrown around that courtroom. So this bill very much would have helped the bang bowlers, for sure, and it is what you know getting on.
Speaker 2:Well, it's eight years since I presented it to Parliament and I'm not somebody who says it has to be done exactly as I introduced it. It has to be done exactly as I introduced it. It was drafted with the help of very eminent KCs who had assisted the second Hillsborough inquest and were very much linked to the Hillsborough justice campaign. So we've got the highest of confidence in those individuals and they drafted the bill. No one has ever pointed out to me a defect in that bill.
Speaker 2:However, I'm never somebody who says, oh, it can't be improved or it can't be amended. But what I would say to the government is you should be working from that bill and amending it, as opposed to coming forward with a kind of alternative legal entity. And I think that's where we find ourselves at the moment. We're still waiting to see how we will move forward now with the Hillsborough law. I'm pleased in some ways to hear the statement you just read out, but I noticed it was missing any reference to parity of legal funding. And if the Cabinet Office don't understand that that's massive in terms of the Bang Bowlers case, well, I'm afraid they've not got a full understanding of the issue. If they're only talking about duty of candour, important as that is, they are still missing. You know, half of the Hillsborough law.
Speaker 3:It's interesting that you say you know how long ago it was that you first proposed this bill. I want to go back even further. Let's talk about a little boy, robbie Powell. He died 40 years ago as a result of medical negligence and that was covered up by doctors and police. They lied. We know that is a fact and his dad will. I'm in contact with his family, um he he asks if you think, um, that his case first really shone a light on the absence of a legal duty of candor, and he wonders why the Labour government ignored the Health Select Committee recommendations back in 1999 for a statutory duty of candor. So we knew many years ago that some people in authority would lie to cover up mistakes and exacerbating the pain of families because they won't tell the truth. So the question is from Will did his son's death really shine a light for the first time on this issue, and why has it taken so long to get to where we are today? Do you think, andy?
Speaker 2:to get to where we are today, do you think handy? Well, firstly, can I just say to the family, they clearly um did a huge thing in fighting um the case on the campaign in respect of their son, all of that way to get that recommendation. That was a huge thing, and they absolutely um have, if you like, been pioneers in this, in this space for us all now to sort of build on. The question is why. You know why so long under all governments. You know how does these things just carry on and on and on. You know, in Mary's case, you know 78,. You know we're talking, we're getting on here. For 50 years, aren't we that the Primodos families have been fighting, and you see what happened? Mary said it before. There's a reason why they drag it out, isn't it? Because, in the end, campaigns will break down, as you heard related around the Primidos campaign. It's kind of what they do, don't they? They play the long game and then they force kind of families into sort of internal tensions and campaign groups then fall out with each other. That's how they do it. Why does it take so long, though?
Speaker 2:Let me come back to this question. I'm going to give you my experience as a government minister from these issues, and I think the role of the Treasury needs to be, if you like, exposed here and talked about directly, because what I have experienced is in relation to these issues, you will often be told as a minister, there is a very clear instruction from the Treasury that there must be no admission of any liability and any public statement a minister makes must not in any way get close to any admission of liability because of the fear of the financial exposure, to any admission of liability, because of the fear of the financial exposure. Now, I am sure that that is what led indeed the inquiry concluded this that that's why that issue kind of by successive governments had failed to deal with it. But I think it's also at play in the Primados case, and you know immediately that diktat is working against the telling of the truth, isn't it? Because if you're saying no, the finance comes first, fear of the financial exposure is the first consideration, as the Treasury are ordaining, you know of government departments and civil servants working within them.
Speaker 2:Immediately, you've created the wrong conditions there, haven't you? You basically said money matters more than the truth, and I think that is a big part of the cultural problem here at the heart of the British state, and that's why the duty of candour is so important. Civil servants have got to be protected in telling the truth against that sort of you know, the grip of the treasury on the system that often, you know, puts up to ministers those half-truthful statements or evasive statements that they're meant to make in the Commons when something like this happens. So, trying to give you the best answer I can, Angela, to your very, very astute question, but I think the role of the Treasury absolutely comes into play and, mary, I'm sure you feel that in relation to your campaign over the years, I do.
Speaker 1:I think that the problem is they don't look at the human cost. They just look at the financial cost, and for us as human beings, we just want to know the truth. Were we culpable because we took the tablets? No, do we believe that we're guilty? Yes, you can't get rid of that guilt, because we actually took them, even though we were never told that there was any risk whatsoever. But they only look at pensioners and pens, and I think that's such an awful way for people to live these days. You know you need to look at human beings, the suffering that they're going through, and to have that guilt lifted off our shoulders would mean more than any compensation. That's what we want.
Speaker 2:We want you know what I'd say as well, though, mary, you know I'm doing that in making that sort of you know, finance come first sort of those rulings, what they're doing is they are under underestimating the resilience of people and families like, like your good self. What they are believing is that they will eventually grind people down and they won't be able to fight. But you're still fighting and it's amazing that you are still fighting in the way that you are. I've just got nothing but admiration for you. But I see in you what I saw in Margaret Aspinall and Jenny Hicks and Anne Williams, who you know, who originally spoke to me straight after the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough with evidence that her son, kevin, had been alive at 3.45 on the day. I've seen it in so many people now.
Speaker 2:The British government underestimates the strength of the British people because people do not give in and they keep fighting, and thank God they do, because in the end they will change this country. We will get back Hillsborough law. They won't be able to do what they've done in the future to what they've done to families in the past. We will get justice for Primidos at the end of the day, because we won't accept anything less. But not only do they underestimate people, they end up with a bigger bill at the end of it, and that's why I say this culture's got to come to an end yeah, thank you both so much.
Speaker 3:Um, you know, talking to you, marie, you are such an inspiration because you know you've just plowed on for decades and I hope for you that the end is in sight and andy the work that you've done to get this built to where it is. You just should be commended for that, you know, and let's just hope. I mean, when do you think we're going to see this come to fruition?
Speaker 2:Well, thank you for what you said, angela, but also thank you for your interest in the Hillsborough law. As I say, it's not so much about Hillsborough anymore, but it's about obviously helping people still fighting, like Marion. We all, we're all fully behind you, marion. That will never, that will never, never change. When will it come through? Well, you know, you heard that statement that you read out and, let's be fair, that's a reasonably strong statement from the cabinet office. They just now need to turn that into action. The words have to be turned into action and a bill has to be presented.
Speaker 2:As I say, I'm prepared to accept a change, but not one that kind of waters down the bill and or removes half of it, which was that legal duty, uh, to give equal uh funding to, uh to families. So I'm I I live in hope that we will see this bill on the statute book in 2025. I think that is still achievable, um, and I think we've got to. You know, you know work to that. To that end, you know the the government will be in Liverpool for its conference later this year. It needs to go there in my mind being able to say look people in the eye saying we promised, we have done it um, and you know, I'm confident we can, if we, if we all are prepared to sort of focus on it now, we can get this change, this change made yeah, it'd be nice if they do it before my 80th next year, andy fingers crossed, fingers crossed have to be fighting in the way.
Speaker 2:But that's yeah, but, yeah. But you go into your 80th year, mary, knowing that you, margaret, all the other people I've mentioned, in the end, the fight you've led will change this country. I am absolutely certain of that.
Speaker 1:That'd be a great birthday present.
Speaker 2:Thank you, and we're going to make sure you get it.
Speaker 1:Thank you, bless you, for doing this. It's really really kind of you to take such an interest.
Speaker 3:Thank you both so much. That's Marie Lyon campaigner. Andy Burrenham, mayor of Greater Manchester. You've been listening to Angela Walker in Conversation. You can find more of my work on my website, angelawalkerreportscom. Make sure you subscribe and like this podcast Until next time. Goodbye.
